The Case Is Not Made

Most Read

You have not told the country why it should be making war in Syria, because you can't make a case that doesn't involve either fanciful speculation of some international criminal conspiracy, or some other thing whereby the weapons end up in some place that inconveniences noted human-rights activist Vladimir Putin.

This is not a world we should accept. This is what's at stake. And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime's ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.

Pardon me, but the world has tolerated the use of these weapons almost ever since they were banned. The world tolerated the use of these weapons in the 1980's, when we were playing Iran and Iraq off against each other. I am authentically tired of listening to how horrified we are now.

My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons, and degrading Assad's capabilities. Others have asked whether it's worth acting if we don't take out Assad. As some members of Congress have said, there's no point in simply doing a "pinprick" strike in Syria. Let me make something clear: The United States military doesn't do pinpricks. Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver. I don't think we should remove another dictator with force -- we learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. But a targeted strike can make Assad, or any other dictator, think twice before using chemical weapons.

Sorry, sir, but bull. Also, shit. Given the context you've established, anything short of regime change in Syria has to be considered a failure. Unless you're prepared to remove Assad, your actions have no point. Your strategy has no logic to it.

It's true that some of Assad's opponents are extremists. But al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death. The majority of the Syrian people -- and the Syrian opposition we work with -- just want to live in peace, with dignity and freedom. And the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism.

Actually, recent history tells us that the reaction to a great power making war in a smaller place doesn't happen like that at all. We armed the jihadis in Afghanistan, they won, and elements of them turned against us. You cannot redouble our efforts in Syria for a political solution after we've blown the crap out of the place. The absolute blindness of our political and governing elites to the fact that this country has no credibility in this part of the world continues to amaze and astound. We tell the people there that we are waging a limited, targeted war, and they will tell us, fuck you, you're killing people here again. We have arranged that part of the world to the point where we get blamed for everything. It's not fair, but that's the way it is. Please, Mr. President, don't listen to the people you're listening to any more.